Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Hi Peter, On 2016/04/20 at 21:49, Xunlei Pang wrote: > On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: >>> + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ >>> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; >>> + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; >>> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) >>> { >>> + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, >>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; >>> } >> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff? > I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you > think task_struct is better. What do you think this version of PATCH1 and PATCH2? If you are fine with it, I can sent it out as v4 separately, then we can focus on the issue in PATCH5. Thanks! > > Regards, > Xunlei
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Hi Peter, On 2016/04/20 at 21:49, Xunlei Pang wrote: > On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: >>> + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ >>> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; >>> + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; >>> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) >>> { >>> + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, >>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; >>> } >> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff? > I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you > think task_struct is better. What do you think this version of PATCH1 and PATCH2? If you are fine with it, I can sent it out as v4 separately, then we can focus on the issue in PATCH5. Thanks! > > Regards, > Xunlei
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: >> +/* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ >> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; >> +struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; >> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) >> { >> +if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) >> return NULL; >> >> +return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, >> +struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; >> } > why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff? I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better. Regards, Xunlei
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: >> +/* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ >> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; >> +struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; >> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) >> { >> +if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) >> return NULL; >> >> +return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, >> +struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; >> } > why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff? I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better. Regards, Xunlei
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: > + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ > struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; > + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; > struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) > { > + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) > return NULL; > > + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, > + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; > } why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: > + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */ > struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost; > + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy; > struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task) > { > + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy) > return NULL; > > + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy, > + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task; > } why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?